[teejers1]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].

[teejers1]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].